NationStates

Should the Moderation team adhere to professional standards when acting in their official capacity?

Now I had no issues with the team responding like for like when on the forums as players. After all, who among us hasn't come close to the line, or occasionally crossed it, from time to time? Moderators are people too.

What I'm asking is whether the moderation team should be held to a higher standard while passing judgement or responding to complaints? A standard similar to employees of any company where one is part of the customer facing team and dealing with the public as a representative of the company rather than as an individual?

I would say that there should be a higher standard and that the moderation team when acting as moderators should be responding in a polite and professional way while still making their rulings.

What say you great unwashed masses?

They are technically working (or, more specifically, volunteering), so they should be more formal when responding to reports. After all, they were chosen by Barry himself, and so they should act as role models to all other players.

Agreed.

The rude, snarky and condescending remarks from mods that we have all unfortunately gotten used to should not be tolerated at all.

I do remember reading DLN's rather... crude... post on the Mentor Team's letter regarding the M&R incident, after locking it. I know, we're allowed to swear on the maternal copulating forum, but I found that it was a little excessive with the language, especially since it was just to explain the reason for the thread lock.

Bunkeranlage wrote:I do remember reading DLN's rather... crude... post on the Mentor Team's letter regarding the M&R incident, after locking it. I know, we're allowed to swear on the maternal copulating forum, but I found that it was a little excessive with the language, especially since it was just to explain the reason for the thread lock.

That's why I'm fearful of Nathi...

I understand that most Mods are aged, so it is only natural for there to be some cynicism, but they should bear in mind that most forum posters are 13-17 years old, and are still children, not to mention the many underage forum posters around that do not reveal their age...

The main problem is the narrow difference between 'witty authority figure' and 'bully in a position of power'. If you want to offer a little commentary or a few jokes on an issue, feel free, but there's no need to be, well, mean about it. If someone has a grievance they feel is legitimate, don't just dismiss them or make fun of them for being upset. That's how public officials don't get themselves re-elected. Basically: you don't have to be nice, just don't be unnecessarily mean.

The Risen Jaguar Warriors wrote:

Bunkeranlage wrote:I do remember reading DLN's rather... crude... post on the Mentor Team's letter regarding the M&R incident, after locking it. I know, we're allowed to swear on the maternal copulating forum, but I found that it was a little excessive with the language, especially since it was just to explain the reason for the thread lock.

That's why I'm fearful of Nathi...

I understand that most Mods are aged, so it is only natural for there to be some cynicism, but they should bear in mind that most forum posters are 13-17 years old, and are still children, not to mention the many underage forum posters around that do not reveal their age...

It's not really the language that's a problem IMO, it's the fact that the attitude often conveyed is "ugh, I'm so sick of these people, why do I have to deal with this nonsense" in a position they volunteer for.

The Risen Jaguar Warriors wrote:

Bunkeranlage wrote:I do remember reading DLN's rather... crude... post on the Mentor Team's letter regarding the M&R incident, after locking it. I know, we're allowed to swear on the maternal copulating forum, but I found that it was a little excessive with the language, especially since it was just to explain the reason for the thread lock.

That's why I'm fearful of Nathi...

I understand that most Mods are aged, so it is only natural for there to be some cynicism, but they should bear in mind that most forum posters are 13-17 years old, and are still children, not to mention the many underage forum posters around that do not reveal their age...

I'll quote this observation from someone whose mother is a teacher:

And don’t go saying it’s unrealistic for ten/eleven year olds to have sex. My mother (the poor woman) is a form-seven teacher and has regularly managed to catch her twelve/thirteen year olds having quickies during the lunch break. I usually get all the gruesome details when I drop in for dinner.

By comparison, language and cynicism are nothing, especially when you consider they're moderating an Internet forum, not a courtroom.

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:The main problem is the narrow difference between 'witty authority figure' and 'bully in a position of power'. If you want to offer a little commentary or a few jokes on an issue, feel free, but there's no need to be, well, mean about it. If someone has a grievance they feel is legitimate, don't just dismiss them or make fun of them for being upset. That's how public officials don't get themselves re-elected. Basically: you don't have to be nice, just don't be unnecessarily mean.

Yes I know after I post this I will be hated but they do abuse their power sometimes.

Northern European Senates remnants wrote:

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:The main problem is the narrow difference between 'witty authority figure' and 'bully in a position of power'. If you want to offer a little commentary or a few jokes on an issue, feel free, but there's no need to be, well, mean about it. If someone has a grievance they feel is legitimate, don't just dismiss them or make fun of them for being upset. That's how public officials don't get themselves re-elected. Basically: you don't have to be nice, just don't be unnecessarily mean.

Yes I know after I post this I will be hated but they do abuse their power sometimes.

Such as when? Having a tinge of snark is not an abuse of power.

And honestly, I see no issue with it. As someone stated it is an internet forum, not a court room.

Leadership by example is superior to leadership by "do as we say, not as we do".

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:

The Risen Jaguar Warriors wrote:That's why I'm fearful of Nathi...

I understand that most Mods are aged, so it is only natural for there to be some cynicism, but they should bear in mind that most forum posters are 13-17 years old, and are still children, not to mention the many underage forum posters around that do not reveal their age...

It's not really the language that's a problem IMO, it's the fact that the attitude often conveyed is "ugh, I'm so sick of these people, why do I have to deal with this nonsense" in a position they volunteer for.

That really is true. I'm sick of certain moderators acting as if this is some chore for them. They should resign if they hate dealing with problems so much.

Northern European Senates remnants wrote:

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:The main problem is the narrow difference between 'witty authority figure' and 'bully in a position of power'. If you want to offer a little commentary or a few jokes on an issue, feel free, but there's no need to be, well, mean about it. If someone has a grievance they feel is legitimate, don't just dismiss them or make fun of them for being upset. That's how public officials don't get themselves re-elected. Basically: you don't have to be nice, just don't be unnecessarily mean.

Yes I know after I post this I will be hated but they do abuse their power sometimes.

It's not a question of abusing powers. The moderation team here really doesn't. It's more about the language used when acting as a moderator rather than a player.

Umm... Let's just be aware that the mods can ban whomever they see fit, so it's best if everyone goes back and edits their posts so as to not get banned and/or deleted... Please?

Northern European Senates remnants wrote:

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:The main problem is the narrow difference between 'witty authority figure' and 'bully in a position of power'. If you want to offer a little commentary or a few jokes on an issue, feel free, but there's no need to be, well, mean about it. If someone has a grievance they feel is legitimate, don't just dismiss them or make fun of them for being upset. That's how public officials don't get themselves re-elected. Basically: you don't have to be nice, just don't be unnecessarily mean.

Yes I know after I post this I will be hated but they do abuse their power sometimes.

I have yet to see an actual example of such.

West Colovia wrote:

Northern European Senates remnants wrote:Yes I know after I post this I will be hated but they do abuse their power sometimes.

Such as when? Having a tinge of snark is not an abuse of power.

And honestly, I see no issue with it. As someone stated it is an internet forum, not a court room.

But they're almost literally model posters. If they set a precedent for excessive rudeness and language, they're undermining their own efforts to maintain order. It helps everyone if they're a little more professional.

The Leningrad Union wrote:Agreed.

The rude, snarky and condescending remarks from mods that we have all unfortunately gotten used to should not be tolerated at all.

No one is forcing you to log into the site. They are unpaid volunteers.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:Umm... Let's just be aware that the mods can ban whomever they see fit, so it's best if everyone goes back and edits their posts so as to not get banned and/or deleted... Please?

We aren't breaking any rules and mods cannot just go around banning people, they have to do it with justification.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:Umm... Let's just be aware that the mods can ban whomever they see fit, so it's best if everyone goes back and edits their posts so as to not get banned and/or deleted... Please?

If anybody in this thread thus far was to be banned or warned, that would constitute an abuse of power. The mods aren't going to delete anybody over calm, rational discussion in the proper channels.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:Umm... Let's just be aware that the mods can ban whomever they see fit, so it's best if everyone goes back and edits their posts so as to not get banned and/or deleted... Please?

Not really. They can only ban those who violate site rules. They are not tyrants, as much as you seem to think otherwise.

The Leningrad Union wrote:

The Fascist American Empire wrote:Umm... Let's just be aware that the mods can ban whomever they see fit, so it's best if everyone goes back and edits their posts so as to not get banned and/or deleted... Please?

We aren't breaking any rules and mods cannot just go around banning people, they have to do it with justification.

Really? Under what law do they have to justify banning someone?

Chester Pearson wrote:

The Leningrad Union wrote:Agreed.

The rude, snarky and condescending remarks from mods that we have all unfortunately gotten used to should not be tolerated at all.

No one is forcing you to log into the site. They are unpaid volunteers.

Ah, the "don't like then leave" card. That's why every RPer on the site left back in June, right?

Chester Pearson wrote:

The Leningrad Union wrote:Agreed.

The rude, snarky and condescending remarks from mods that we have all unfortunately gotten used to should not be tolerated at all.

No one is forcing you to log into the site. They are unpaid volunteers.

So? Being an unpaid volunteer has nothing to do with rudeness coming from moderation.

The Leningrad Union wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:
No one is forcing you to log into the site. They are unpaid volunteers.

So? Being an unpaid volunteer has nothing to do with rudeness coming from moderation.

Then don't give them a reason to be rude to you. Pretty simple solution there.

Chester Pearson wrote:

The Leningrad Union wrote:We aren't breaking any rules and mods cannot just go around banning people, they have to do it with justification.

Really? Under what law do they have to justify banning someone?

Uh...the site rules. Their mod powers are "punish people for breaking the rules, with some personal discretion." If they were to just delete or ban people willy-nilly, they'd probably not be mods any more.

Chester Pearson wrote:

The Leningrad Union wrote:So? Being an unpaid volunteer has nothing to do with rudeness coming from moderation.

Then don't give them a reason to be rude to you. Pretty simple solution there.

...I'm not sure if I should dignify this with a response. If someone is shot, would you advise them to simply not be hit by bullets? I mean, it's a pretty simple solution there.